>Note that the problem of non-increasing qualifiers no longer affect us
when using p2. p2 lets you deliver a new build that contains older versions
of plug-ins if you so desire.
>Still, a consistent convention that sorts nicely is useful because these
tags appear in sorted order in various places in the CVS UI.
Interesting news John! How is that achieved? For us the versioning scheme
has to work also when patching the build with our exported plug-ins (i.e.
not a complete new build). The reason for Boris's approach (i.e. tag at the
end) was the fear that we forget to increment the service number for a
maintenance build and when using "r..." for tagging it would result in a
lower version than for the main release itself where "v..." was used. If
this is indeed no longer a concern and p2 always takes the latest installed
plug-in in case of identical "major.minor.service" number then I'd vote for
John's approach - otherwise +1 for Boris's suggestion.
Dani
John Arthorne
<John_Arthorne@ca
.ibm.com> To
Sent by: "General development mailing list
eclipse-dev-bounc of the Eclipse project."
es@xxxxxxxxxxx <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
17.04.2008 02:37 Subject
Re: [eclipse-dev] consistent CVS
tags for builds?
Please respond to
"General
development
mailing list of
the Eclipse
project."
<eclipse-dev@ecli
pse.org>
Consistency is good, and the proposed convention almost makes sense. The
only difference I would suggest is to put the branch tag at the start of
the qualifer rather than the end. The advantage of doing this is that it
causes builds on the same branch to be grouped together in a
lexicographical sort. The is useful when doing things like "Compare/Replace
With > Version", where lists of CVS tags are shown in sorted order. Instead
of having the builds from a given branch mixed in with builds on other
branches depending on the day they occurred, you get them all grouped
together. You can easily find all the versions that occurred on branch X.
Essentially, I'm suggesting what we wrote in the versioning guidelines:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering#When_to_change_the_qualifier_segment
Note that the problem of non-increasing qualifiers no longer affect us when
using p2. p2 lets you deliver a new build that contains older versions of
plug-ins if you so desire. Still, a consistent convention that sorts nicely
is useful because these tags appear in sorted order in various places in
the CVS UI.
John.v20080416-2036
Boris Bokowski/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
To
eclipse-dev@ec
04/16/2008 04:08 PM lipse.org
cc
Please respond to Subject
"General development mailing list of the [eclipse-dev]
Eclipse project." consistent CVS
<eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> tags for
builds?
The component teams seem to have different conventions for CVS tag names
when doing build submissions. I believe that consistency is a good thing
unless there are good reasons for tag name creativity (are there any?). In
the past, we even had to re-spin builds because inconsistent tag names lead
to non-increasing bundle version numbers. (To be fair, this only happened
if one component in itself was inconsistent though.)
CVS tag names appear in bundle version numbers, in the bundle jar file name
or directory name, and in the revision history for one specific file. They
should increase lexicographically over time as long as the major, minor,
and service segment of the bundle version number does not change, i.e.
within one development stream.
I would like to be able to derive the id of the build in which it first
appeared when looking at a revision of a file in the history view, or when
looking at a particular bundle somewhere on disk.
Kim Horne has volunteered to update the releng tools if we could agree on
the following form for tags (sorry for being formal here):
"v<date>-<time><branch_opt>"
where
date := the current date in yyyyMMdd format
time := the current time in HHmm format
branch_opt := "" if org.eclipse.releng is from HEAD,
"_<branch>" otherwise.
branch := a compressed form of the branch from which org.eclipse.releng
is checked out.
The "compressed form" could be the first letter of the branch name followed
by any numbers in the branch name. The reason for compressing the branch
name is that tag names appear in file names and directory names, and using
the full branch name would lead to overly long names that could cause
problems on certain file systems.
For example, a regular contribution for this week's integration build would
use a tag like "v20080414-1526", and a build submission for a maintenance
build would use a tag like "v20080901-1130_R34". Looking at the first
example tag, we can tell that it was made from HEAD for a regular
integration build some time after April 14, 2008. The second tag looks
like it would go into a maintenance build for the 3.4 maintenance stream.
Questions? Comments?
Boris
P.S. I know that this has been discussed in the past. I don't have much
hope that we can get everyone to agree on this, but I would consider it an
improvement if *most* teams would use a consistent naming scheme.
_______________________________________________
eclipse-dev mailing list
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev
_______________________________________________
eclipse-dev mailing list
eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-dev